Skip to main content
. 2014 Aug 30;15(6):1037–1048. doi: 10.1007/s10162-014-0483-7

TABLE 1.

Details of the CI participants

Subject number Gender Years of CI use Cochlear implant Speech processor Rate of stimulation
1 Male 9 CI24R CS CP810 900
2 Male 5 HiRes 90K Helix Harmony 3,712
3 Male 4 HiRes 90K Helix Harmony 849
4 Male 1 CI24RE CA CP810 900
5 Female 4 HiRes 90K Helix Harmony 2,184
6 Female 12 CI24R k CP810 900
7 Male 2 CI24RE CA CP810 900
8 Male 5 CI24RE CA Freedom 900
9 Female 2 CI24RE CA CP810 900
10 Female 3 CI512 CP810 900
11 Male 6 HiRes 90K Helix Harmony 2,900
12 Male 4 HiRes 90K Helix Harmony 1,740
13 Female 3 CI24RE CA CP810 900
14 Male 8 CI24R CA CP810 900
15 Male 5 CI 11+11+2M Freedom 900
16 Female 2 CI24RE H CP810 900
17 Male 2 CI24RE CA CP810 900
18 Female 1 CI24RE CA CP810 900
19 Female 9 CI24R CA Freedom 900